Manitoba Hansard — 21 March 2014 (Sitting 33C, 40th Legislature, 3rd Session)

40-3-33c

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Daryl Reid Speaker Vol. LXVI No. 33C - 10 a.m., Friday, March 21, 2014 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy St. Vital NDP ALLUM, James, Hon. Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson NDP BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli NDP BLADY, Sharon, Hon. Kirkfield Park NDP BRAUN, Erna, Hon. Rossmere NDP BRIESE, Stuart Agassiz PC CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East NDP CHIEF, Kevin, Hon. Point Douglas NDP CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan NDP CROTHERS, Deanne St.

James NDP CULLEN, Cliff Spruce Woods PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FRIESEN, Cameron Morden-Winkler PC GAUDREAU, Dave St. Norbert NDP GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Liberal GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Richmond NDP JHA, Bidhu Radisson NDP KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Swan River NDP LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. Dawson Trail NDP MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor, Hon.

Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MARTIN, Shannon Morris PC MELNICK, Christine Riel Ind. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East PC NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake NDP OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River NDP PALLISTER, Brian Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PETTERSEN, Clarence Flin Flon NDP PIWNIUK, Doyle Arthur-Virden PC REID, Daryl, Hon. Transcona NDP ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Kewatinook NDP RONDEAU, Jim Assiniboia NDP ROWAT, Leanne Riding Mountain PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron St. Paul PC SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale NDP SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin NDP SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto NDP WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas NDP WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WIGHT, Melanie Burrows NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC

1215 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, March 21, 2014 The House met at 10 a.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION Mr. Chairperson (Mohinder Saran): Order. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Infrastructure and Transportation. As previously agreed, questions for the department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye) : I'd like to ask the minister a few questions in –regarding the Gardenton Floodway. Like, it goes back–I think there was a report back in 1976 that there was some major work that should be done on that floodway. The Americans keep upgrading their systems there.

I know that I just –I received a letter from the RM of Stuartburn not that long ago in regards to the Roseau River Watershed District was –it says here, Roseau River Watershed District proposed Roseau River Wildlife Management Area pool 2, pool 3 outlet project. So they're talking about dumping more water into the Roseau River. So I was just going to ask the minister, in the Throne Speech from November of '13, it was mentioned that there would be work done to the Gardenton Floodway. I'd just like to ask if –what has been done up 'til now?

Like, typically, when there's an announcement in the Throne Speech, it usually ties to dollars, and I was just wondering if any kind of dollar amount has been tied to that project. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Infrastructure and Trans portation): Yes, we have this identified as priority in the five -year program. We're doing work on the functional engineering, as we speak, currently. And we're also keeping a very close eye on the broader condition of the dike. But it is targeted for a significant investment.

And I do want to put on the record, I certainly appreciate the member's concerns about this, and having raised this both to me and with the department and also the member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon). It is part of our flood structure that goes back to the 1930s, and it's in need of renewal and it's going to be renewed. Yes, we have identified funding in our five -year plan, and it really comes down to just finalizing the specific engineering details of it. Mr.

Smook: Would the ministe r be able to tell me, because in talking with the department, when it goes back to 2011, there's been probably three different options that they've looked at. Has the department come up with which option they'd like to pursue? Mr. Ashton : That's not fina lized yet. But what I can undertake, because I know this is, you know, a significant concern to the member, is to ensure that we do a full briefing once the final option is determined.

As he's aware, there are a number of possible ways of dealing with this, but that determination should take place with this functional engineering work fairly soon. So, once that's done, I'll undertake to get a briefing both for him and the member for Emerson. Mr. Smook : So we can look forward to having a decision as to what will be done in the next several months to–a plan of attack or whatever? Mr. Ashton : Yes, and I'll also make sure the municipality gets a full briefing too.

I know this is of concern and we will –we'll make sure that we fully share the information on the plan both in terms of the option that's been chosen and also communicate very clearly that this is identified as –I wouldn't just say a priority; it's one of our top priorities in the province in terms of our multi-year plan. Mr. Smook : I'd like to thank the minister for that information. The next topic I'd like to talk about is the Whitemouth–the bridge over the Whitemouth River at Whitemouth, Manitoba. The RM there has done a number of studies and they're basically in the final design stages in that.

They would like to replace the bridge that has been closed for a couple of years, right near the community, because this bridge cuts – without a bridge there it cuts off several families on

1216 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 one side of the river. And also there's a campground and several other things that are happening on the other side of the river that are in the close vicinity to Whitemouth, and there's several miles that need to be driven in order to go around this bridge. The bridge has been closed for a couple of years. Now, the RM of Whitemouth has some preliminary costings at about 1.9 to 2 million dollars. The RM has approximately 1.158, or $1,158,000, that's available to them right now, of which $270,000 has been donated privately.

The RM is looking at borrowing $350,000, but they're still probably a half a million dollars short. And I know they have sent in applications to the department and stuff to try to get this project done because it is an important project for the area, and I’m just wondering if the minister could update me on anything that he may have in regards to that bridge. Mr. Ashton : Yes, my understanding of the background is there were some issues. You know, the application being incomplete. They sent it to the Municipal Bridge Program, but I understa nd that has been resolved –there's–is close to being resolved.

So at that point there would be an ability to look at the application –[interjection] Yes, we're on the technical side, so I can't speak on the actual disposition of the grant itself, that we p rovide the technical assistance to local government. It's a local government program. But my understanding is there was–there were some issues with the application being incomplete, but that's not the case now. So that's probably best directed to the minis ter for local government in terms of where it's at in terms of the application process. Mr. Smook : How much money is available to the AMM or RMs in that bridge program?

Mr. Ashton : Again, and I do know the general amount, but it's probably best to ask that to the minister of local government. Our role is strictly technical here. We do, obviously, have significant bridge expertise; we assist, you know, on a number of levels including the assessment of the applications, you know, in terms of the conceptual engineering. So my recommendation would be to talk to the minister on the actual finance side, and I'm sure –we're only just starting Estimates , so I'm sure the member would be able to ask that question in Estimates some time. Mr.

Smook : Yes, I'd just like to ask the minister, what's the reasoning behind putting the bridge funding with the AMM's and local government when MIT usually does have the expertise in this area? So I'm just wondering what's the reasoning behind that. * (10:10) Mr. Ashton : Well, the funding goes to the municipalities and, you know, there is a clear delineation between the highway system, you know, roads, highways, bridges that are provincial highways or provincial bridges and municipalities.

There is a historic reason why there has been or there was an involvement of the department in a number of areas that crossed over, like the main market road program, and that goes back to the conversion of the–all but two of the remaining LGDs to municipalities, although, again, now t hat's–there's a role now that's been shifted over. And, basically, we may have the expertise, but the funding essentially is from local government which is responsible for municipalities to municipalities.

I do want to stress that we do have a new component that we –because of the late passage of the budget last year, we weren't able to fully roll out last year, which does allow municipalities to apply to cost-share work on the provincial system that meets local priorities, and that is under our department. But that, again, is for the provincial highway system. And we've already had a number of applications. We've had a couple that have been approved.

And classic kind of scenario that we're looking at, say, with municipalities to maybe –you know, what is effectively the main street which is also a provincial highway, we have interest from a number of municipalities in upgrading the provincial highway to meet, you know, the standard that the community would like to see. It's not something perhaps that would be in our longer term capital plan but is important to the municipality. We've got urban pressures on our highways. We've already agreed to cost -share a traffic study in Steinbach. As the member knows, there's a lot of growth in Steinbach.

There's a lot of pressures on and in and around our highway system, so we could see some potential down the line for cost-sharing of improvements to that highway, based on the study that could look at access, you know, configuration of the highway. And there are many other communities, as well, where, you know, we're seeing a lot of growth. In southwest Manitoba, you've got a number of communities seeing that, you know, Morden- Winkler, Snow Lake –I could run through the list.

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1217 So I do want to indicate that, you know, if you see that in our program, that is to do with municipal cost sharing on provincial highways. We do–we have had some of that on an ad hoc basis over the years, and, certainly, you know, we're going to continue to have the bulk of our funding be prov incial only. There–you know, you have to be careful when you're looking at cost -share programs not to have only, you know, those municipalities that have the ability to cost -share and pay receiving, you know, the attention.

There might be municipalities that don't have the wherewithal financially, so you want to make sure, you know, that the highway system is neutral in that sense. But what we do see is an opportunity –I raised this, as well, with the member for Arthur -Virden (Mr. Piwniuk) yesterday–we are going to be looking at some major upgrades on the provincial system. But–take the oil industry or take the new mining venture, you know, in Snow Lake with HudBay, Lalor Lake, which is a very significant industry. Or take forestry industry or take the a g sector.

You know, it does allow for businesses or municipalities or both to upgrade a highway through this application process. And we're anticipating, by the way, this year, there'll be a fairly significant take- up on that, because it is a real oppor tunity for–you know, for municipalities to deal with it.

The reality, as I've said, I mean, we actually, outside of Winnipeg–where we're not responsible for anything inside the city of Winnipeg, we are responsible pretty well –I'd say probably three quarters of the main streets, main connections in rural towns and villages, and many significant economic arteries in terms of roads. So that's why – you know, I want to stress, we don't deliver the municipal bridge program, but there's a real opportunity for municipalities to partner with us on the provincial system. Mr.

Smook : Yes, when you mention main streets and provincial roads, it brings me down to–we appreciate all the work that you are doing on Trans-Canada, the bridges and the paving. I think that's great in our end there. But it–there's a couple of questions I had from business owners along the Trans -Canada, like, I know that some of them, with the bridge that was done on the Trans -Canada last year, and I would imagine it'll be –there's supp osed to be work coming on a bridge that –the opposite bridge on that opposite lane in the same area.

Is there any type of compensation for businesses who lose a lot of money in their businesses over, say, a –it's going to be probably a three - or four -year sp an where their businesses are probably cut down by 30 or 40 or 50 per cent. Mr. Ashton : In a general sense there isn't compensation, largely because, by the way, I mean, it works both ways. You know, there are times where there's inconvenience on the transportation side, but then again these are transportation arteries that are also often key to the businesses. If the member does have concern about the eastbound lanes, we're not looking at that this year.

We do try and minimize the construction delays as w ell. I think we've done a significant amount of work on that. I'd also add, by the way, that we've also been working with the trucking industry. We had a recent situation where there was a closure, actually, on one, and it did inconvenience the trucking i ndustry. It wasn't our initiative; it was one of the rail companies. And we have been working with them out of that experience to see if we can't find ways of having alternate routes that don't disrupt trucking.

As the member will know, it doesn't take a l ot with the 24-7 nature of trucking to have a significant disruption and cost factor for both trucking companies and the shippers. So we do try and minimize it and we certainly recognize there can be impacts. Again, I'm very up front, too, with all the construction work. I only say it half-jokingly; I know there are delays. We try and minimize that. I think we've gotten very good at that over the years, but there's still delays, there's still inconveniences, and we do try to work with the surrounding businesses to make sure that we minimize that.

I'll be the first one to acknowledge that there are disruptions from highway construction, but then again, once it's complete it does have some significant advantages as well. The other issue we are looking at, by the way, just in a broader sense –and I mentioned this yesterday but it does apply as well to some of the work we're doing in and around Emerson, which I know the member is, you know, aware of, and the member for Emerson (Mr.

Graydon) talked about yesterday–you know, where we do look at making significant highway upgrades, we're often looking at rationalizing access, but in some of our major projects we're also building in–ensuring, for example, that Emerson is not essentially cut off or

1218 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 restricted from access onto 75. And I'm talking about a real sense; I mean, there's always access because we also are trying to work with communities, particularly with Emerson right now in that context, to see ways in which the transportation planning can actually help bu siness, whether it's off–right off 75 itself. There's some interest in the community of, you know, for outlet malls, that sort of thing.

You know, and again, how you plan the transportation is a key part of it but it is also important to ensure there are services available– we're working on that–and that the town itself has the opportunity to benefit. When you're looking at significant traffic movements, often transportation can make a huge difference on actually adding economic activity. So we also do look at that side as well. Mr. Smook: Question in regards to the road, it's a numbered PR that's coming off of Trans -Canada at the community of Prawda.

There has been a couple of businesses there that are doing some work there and they're upgrading their faci lities. I'm just wondering where the upgrading of that intersection stands right now, if there's been any plans to do anything with it. Mr. Ashton: What I'll do, I'll ask the department to get an update as we perhaps proceed, and –actually, a quick–I have the quick answer to that –it's a quick turnaround–we're–we are working with the developer on that right now. Mr.

Smook: It's been a long time and it seems that there's a number of delays where, when we look at community development, when somebody's willi ng to spend millions of dollars in the community, that there seems to be dragging along for a long time. I just was wondering if you could provide me with an update ASAP on that. There's another construction season that's coming, and I would hate to see it dragged out another year. Mr. Ashton: Yes, I think the–you know, a lot of this was to do with getting acceptable options.

You know, I think the –one of–the issue, I'm advised, was the developer wanted direct access, which again is – doesn't meet the standa rds that we do in terms of design. * (10:20) So we're working on our other options that would provide, you know, the advantage to the developer, to the business owner, without impacting on the actual standard of the highway. So that's why it's taking some time. [interjection] Yes, and the key balance with all of this is, you know, there is a direct trade-off a lot of times between access and public safety.

The more you rationalize access, the safer the highway and, you know, you still need some form of access. You know, I've seen highways designed in other jurisdictions where they're wonderful highways, speed limit 130 kilometres, no access on or off for consistent period of times. As a matter of fact, this one place I know, they had a s nowstorm and it shut down the highway for three days. They couldn't even–it was such poor access they couldn't even get snowplows on. That's not Manitoba. We know how to handle snow here. So–but it just shows, you know, there is that trade -off even on the other side.

And it–to my mind–we are–I'm advised we are working quite closely with the developer and we're optimistic of getting some resolution on it. Mr. Smook: Yes, I get a lot of questions from my constituents in regards to Highway 15. Is there any plan in there for doing any renovations to Highway 15 east of Dugald? Like, I mean, you could go for 70 miles there, probably. Is there any plans to any of it? Because some of it is in pretty rough shape. A lot of the areas don't have a lot of shoulders. Mr. Ashton : Yes, we are looking at the surface condition.

I'm advised by the department they're certainly aware of some of the surface issues. So we are looking at that in terms of potential options to deal with that. Mr. Smook : Are there any timelines o n this? Are there any plans in the next–in this five-year project to do anything in these five years? Mr. Ashton: Yes, we do have some plans in terms of microsurfacing on one section–[interjection] – 207 to Dugald is planned for–[interjection] And that is–I'm also advised that is where the high- traffic counts are. So it would target the most trafficked area. Mr.

Smook: Since I understand we have some EMO staff here today, in the southeast corner of the province we've had problems with fires over the last number of years we've had, and even during our flood conditions. And one of our major problems is communication, and I'm just wondering if EMO has looked at any better way that we'll be able to communicate should we have a bit of a disaster in the area. Mr. Ashton : Well, I can certainly indicate we're more aware of the overall frustration with cellphone

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1219 service. We share that. We have raised this with the federal government, which is the regulator. They regulate telecommunications. They're a significant beneficiary, you know, of the ability to auction off – the ability to do that. So there's a financial flow to the federal government. We also believe that there's a responsibility that goes with telecommunications providers to deal with that. I do want to stress that's– I know that's been raised with me numerous times by municipalities, but it's not the primary form of communication.

One of the problems with cellphone service is even when you do have it it's very easily disrupted and, again, it's not totally comprehensive. I'll talk about when, during the 2011 flood, I was in constant contact with Kam Blight, who is the reeve of the RM of Portage. He lives about seven kilometres away from Portage la Prairie. I could text him, but I couldn't reach him by phone. So there's dead spots.

Even here in the city of Winnipeg there are places in the city of Winnipeg, actually, particularly in around the stadium–I've gone to restaurants, I've got family in around the area, no cellphone service right in the mi ddle of Winnipeg. So I want to stress that it's a legitimate concern, but it's not a primary form of communications. The key thing we have been involved with is with FleetNet, and we are in a upgrade. The FleetNet is, you know, is basically the basic spine of communications.

Because the key concern for us, quite apart from the, you know, the broader issue of communications in the general public is the ability to communicate with emergency service providers, and we're certainly aware of the fire aspect. I , actually, coincidentally, was out in that area during the, you know, the last major fire and I saw first -hand how rapidly it moved. You know, you really need– you need to have a very efficient system in terms of dealing with that. And I do want to credi t, by the way, all the municipality's and their –the speed at which they moved was quite significant.

The other thing I want to mention on communications generally is we are also wanting to get to the next level in terms of the broad public alert system. T he platform is there. We–as Emergency Measures Minister along with the federal minister, who at that time, of course, was Vic Toews, did sign off on a broader agreement to proceed. We still have a problem that it is not mandatory for telecommunications providers to do that. We–I know there were some concerns expressed on the liability side, but for that to be effective we need all platforms and all providers to be able to provide that information.

The member mentioned forest fires, they can develop very rapidly. Another one is obviously tornados, which also can impact in his area, and what we are looking at is we have a system that can provide broad- based information whether it's by Internet, cellphone, radio, television, you name it. And, again, we think that the next step there has to be at the –probably at the regulatory level. These are all–communications platforms are regulated by the CRTC and the federal government can have a significant role. That's not meant as a political shot.

It's just meant as a sort of reality check, because we do need to have the ability to get targeted information out to people. That's the first step, you know, if there is a threat. We also need to communicate with service providers, you know, emergency service providers, and that's where FleetNet comes in. Mr. Smook : Yes, has the minister's department in the last 10 years provided any funding to any type of cellphone service or fibre optics, like putting conduits in roads for fibre optics for free Internet? Has the departm ent funded anything in the last 10 years? Mr.

Ashton : Not EMO and it's not really EMO's role. The Province, I know, has provided funding for weather radios. I don't know if the member has one, but I have one in my office. The –this broadcasts significant weather warnings, et cetera. We did provide funding through government to public facilities, municipal offices, child -care facilities. Again, it's a low-tech, but very effective approach. In fact, I'm advised now it's in all schools and in all RMs, and we' ve encouraged people to buy them. They're pretty inexpensive. Many farmers have them, you know, certain construction companies I would assume have them.

The member may know a bit more about that –I mean, people that have to worry about the environment on a day-to-day basis. So we have provided that element. But the key issue with cellphone service, I can tell you –Highway 6, we used to have virtually no cellphone service. It's now the length of it. It makes a real difference. The market will take care of som e of that. I mean, there is a significant amount of traffic, but probably the remaining areas that are gaps in the system where there's any kind of population of southeast Manitoba and a fair amount of northern

1220 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 Manitoba. It's a concern in Lynn Lake, Leaf R apids and many other communities. And I want to stress again, it's not a substitute for many of the other things. But what we're finding is –and I'm sure the member will, you know, see this is as many people who, pre-cellphones, wouldn't even think of whether you have a cellphone or not, or early on in the –you know, with cellphones, if you didn't have a cellphone you just didn't worry about it. There're a lot of people don't want to leave, don't want to drive anywhere unless there's cellphone access.

So we r ecognize even for motorists it's become a–seen as an important safety aspect, as well. * (10:30) So we're very supportive of that. I know our minister responsible–which I believe would be Jobs and the Economy now, I think, in terms of departments–and the previous minister, you know, the then-minister who's now minister of mines, have both taken a lead role on this. And, again, the solution is pretty straightforward. It would be a requirement for the key service providers to go beyond just the individual business case and provide generally, because, you know, the southeast is a classic example to my mind.

There's demand there, and experience certainly elsewhere is that you –you know, you open the service up, and many remote northern communities have localized service. It adds to the number of customers. You know, a lot of people get cellphones. So, you know, it may not meet the sort of the primary business case, but there's certainly some applications. And we are concerned that some of the service providers have been, if anything, cutting back on some of their investments in the cellphone side over the last number of years. When we owned the company, we could do it directly.

Saskatchewan has much better cellphone coverage than we do. It's publicly owned; it 's part of their mandate. But currently we don't own it and we don't regulate it, and our view, by the way, is that there's more than enough money in the system, so to speak, that if it was mandated by the CRTC at the federal level or the regulator, we would see, probably, the first place in Manitoba where you'd see a real difference would be in the southeast. Mr. Smook : One more question for the minister. When I asked this previous question, it–I–it's not just MIT, but –or, sorry, not just EMO, but MIT.

H as MIT ever put money into any of those functions in the last 10 years? Mr. Ashton : Our focus is on the highway, not the information highway, and we have seen, you know, significant enhancement throughout the province in terms of communications generally. And I do know, you know, and I'm not, again, being entirely critical of the federal government; it's not a political comment, but they have made some moves on rural broadband service. Again, that's kind of the other element of it, but, yes, our focus in terms of when we talk about core infrastructure, roads, highways, flood protection.

Beyond that, you know, we'd have response for buildings, et cetera, but the broader telecommunications is really outside of our mandate. Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur- Virden): A question for the minister. This past few number of years we've had a lot of flooding that was happening in the western part of Manitoba; a lot of drainage that comes from Saskatchewan is coming into Manitoba. We saw Reston had significant amount of rain falls, and same with Virden. We've had a lot of issues with the drainage.

One thing that hits home–close to home for me, is I'm from the Shellmouth area, and right behind our farmland, a big valley –ravine that comes from Saskatchewan took out a bridge that was one time a culvert, and now it's becoming from a creek bed to a riverbed. Is there any master plans in the five- year projections, like, the plan that you guys have, your five-year plan, for doing more drainage and more culverts and more canals that would bring the water into–so that it doesn't destroy farmland but also housing, and especially we saw in Reston this past year? Mr.

Ashton : Well, I'll start on the illegal drainage side. We've been a leader on this. The last number of years we've had a significant initiative to tackle illegal drainage. I could talk from direct experience. I was minister of Water Stewardship when we undertook it, was a bit controversial in the Legislature, and I won't revisit the debates. I think it was the right thing to do. It was not to target anyone.

And we were finding significant number of communities where people who were going through the proper processes were saying, well, what's the point if you've got people that are not following the proper processes? And, you know, it doesn't take a very significant number of people who are doing illegal drainage to impact on everybody else. The–we are –we have been in contact with Saskatchewan on a number of levels, but I can tell you they had indicated at our last discussion that this

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1221 year they're going to basically be adopting the same approach that we have, which is a significant enhanced capability to deal with illegal drainage. I want to stress, by the way, we also added to that additional resources to allow people to have legalized drainage, you know, so it's a matter of capacity on the legal side and penalties on the illegal side. So there are some legitimate concerns on the illegal drainage side. I want to stress that doesn't necessarily have an impact on the higher level floods.

I mean, in 2011 the amount of water that we're dealing with –take the southwest, take the Souris River, for example, three crests on the Souris, and, you know, it clearly wasn't just illegal drainage. That was a, you know, a massive flood, and, of course, what happened with Minot is just evidence of the degree to which i t made–it, you know, had a massive impact. I can indicate on the broader flooding issue a lot of the work we've done over the last number of years, and particularly in 2011, has put us in good stead along the Souris.

And, actually, more broadly across th e province, we now –every community is now ring- diked, and, you know, and I look at the experience since 2009, 2011 in southern Manitoba, in Melita, you know, a community that was constantly impacted, we now have basically –we've dealt with some of the broader flooding issues. Again, I mean, our approach in the province, one level is enforcement. One thing we are looking at is more retention.

And it's interesting, I was at the Red River Basin Commission yesterday, I know there's a lot of work taking place on the US side as well on that, and the S tate of North Dakota is looking at some innovative approaches, you know, what's called the waffling approach. I mean, there's some proposals here in the province. I met with some municipal leaders who would like to see some sort of a project here. It takes –similar to what, you know, the ALUS proposal is–and the member for Portage, I know, is an expert on that –but would–you know, could potentially apply it in terms of retention.

So we are looking at some of the options there as well . [inaudible] without the on -land, you know, and private land storage that, you know, could mitigate some of the problems. But the broader issue with–I think with the, you know, issue with Saskatchewan is much more localized, and, you know, when I've met with the–lot of municipality leaders in the southwest, the –any component of illegal drainage would have been negligible in 2011, but it's the kind of situations that the member's identified, very localized situations, where you can make a di fference.

I'd stress that drainage is primarily –the design for drainage is, really, is for ag and localized water control purposes. If you look at the flows in any significant flood, they overwhelm virtually any drainage system. But , having said that, agai n, there are localized situations where it can make a difference. And, if you have significant issues on any border area with Saskatchewan, that does create a problem. I want to stress, by the way, when I talk about Saskatchewan, the illegal drainage sid e, they've also been very co-operative with us in terms of managing their water systems. We do work with them.

There are a number of ways in which we work with them directly. Steve Topping, for example, the member's probably aware of, does –the prairie wate r board, I think, right? Yes. Prairie Provinces Water Board, he's on that, so we have various forms we can deal with with them. They have been working with us co -operatively in managing their retention structures.

The member's probably aware of this, but most Manitobans aren't, the degree to which Saskatchewan's got a pretty extensive retention system, and how they manage it makes a big difference, and they have been managing it in a way that minimizes impacts on Manitoba. So I want to put on the record t hat, you know, we don't just point fingers if there's something wrong. We also give them credit when there's something going well. I've met with my counterpart in Saskatchewan. The Minister of Conservation and Water Stewardship (Mr. Mackintosh) has also me t with our counterpart in Saskatchewan.

When we had the joint Cabinet meeting, we identified this as an issue that we want to continue to work on. So we've got a good working relationship with them. * (10:40) So the bottom line here is we would anticipate, if they're moving to a system similar to ours on illegal drainage, that would help mitigate the situation, but we're certainly in our own water management, and I know the surface water management, you know, policy, and my colleague has been talking about that as well, we are looking at retention as well as some of the broader flood control issues.

And I think the member's probably aware of, you know, the Lake Manitoba scenario–Lake Manitoba, Lake St. Martin, you know, the larger flood mitigation projects , but retention is certainly very much on our horizon.

1222 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 And the member mentioned about, you know, with the Shellmouth, I mean, probably the biggest example of that in Manitoba is the Shellmouth Dam, which makes a huge difference every year in terms of flo od control and water management in the Assiniboine. It is responsible for a significant amount of value -added agricultural production, particularly in the Portage area.

So, you know, the Shellmouth itself is –and I know there are localized issues and there are concerns, you know, that –about this, the operation of the Shellmouth, but it certainly is an example on a large scale of retention. And people tend to forget, by the way, but on the flood control side how much it helps mitigate floods; 2011 flood is a good example. The operation of the Shellmouth along with the Fairford outlet made a very significant difference. As bad as it was in terms of impacts, it could have been a lot worse. So we're more than aware of the fact that retention is a key factor.

I appreciate it's a long answer, but, you know, I think the member raised a lot of questions and I wanted to give sort of a comprehensive sense of what's happening in the southwest. Mr.

Piwniuk: Another question for the minister–was just going to elaborate m ore on the –I know when I was doing my campaign there was one situation where one person suggested that, maybe, possibly doing more dams, like Saskatchewan has done, retention, especially in the area, like especially in the southwest area there is a lot of flat plains, whatever, but there's a lot of creeks that flood–run into that like the Oak Lake river system, the Pipestone river. You know, it comes from the highlands of Saskatchewan into more of a flatter lands of an Oak Lake area. There is a lot of flooding going on in that area.

Is there issues being –solutions of actually creating some more canals and retention pond– retention dams up creeks –up from the Saskatchewan border onward? Mr. Ashton: Yes, short answer is yes. KGS is doing a broader analysis of any and all flood- related options, including retention. And people are probably aware of some of the, you know, the bigger picture elements. I mean, the Holland Dam, you know, that, I mean, they will look at that, which is a– would be a very expensive but, you know, high-level project but they're also looking at a lot of other, more localized initiatives.

And not just in the southwest by the way, we're also quite concerned about some of the flooding that's taking place in the Parklands, parts of the Interlake, and we've seen some, you know, chronic flooding in those areas and some very unusual patterns, you know, in terms of Waterhen, like in terms of flows, and there are some issues with Dauphin Lake, Lake Winnipegosis, you know, so we're looking broadly. And I want to stress that, you know, there's a lot of attention, rightfully so, on Lake Manitoba and Lake St.

Martin; it is a priority and we precommitted the–to the two outlets, but we also recognize there were significant flood impacts in 2009 and 2011 in other parts of the province including in the southwest. We also recognize, too, by the way, in– the southwest has had both too much moisture and not enough over the last number of years. There's been some significant variation. So, you know, again any of these type of initiatives, if there's any ability to help in terms of the management in both, you know, during the wet and the dry aspects of the cycle, are something we'll look at.

But KGS, which is, you know, the pre -eminent engineering firm in terms of, you know, this kind of analysis is definitely looking at the kind of things that the member has talked about. Mr.

Piwniuk: Another question, this is actually going to the EMO –being that we're in the oil industry in our–in my constituency, the concern was, you know, if there's ever emergency measures when it comes to an explosion or a gas –we have TransCanada pipeline that goes throughout the whole province, and there's talk about expansion of an oil pipeline for the TransCanada, too, and even the side pipelines that, you know, Tundra Oil & Gas has –is there plans to maybe help some of –with some of the fire departments to equip them better when it comes to–or having facilities?

I know there's one issue right now that they want to expand the –especially t he Virden fire department so that they're equipped more for emergency situations, if there's ever an explosion, that they can be better equipped, have the equipment for that. Is that something like –that's on the long-range plan for EMO? Mr. Ashton: Direct responsibility on the fire side is the Fire Commissioner's office, so the member may want to raise that directly with the minister responsible, Fire Commissioner's office.

In a broader sense, I can tell you, certainly coming out of our experience with the recent gas explosion, I'll –I will make a couple of comments, perhaps, in the EMO perspective which do apply equally to the pipelines.

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1223 You know, the kind of scenario the member's talking about and kind of more broadly, I'll just make a couple of quick comments as well, because, you know, the issue of rail safety and rail transportation, you know, is something that I'm sure is a concern to the member and his constituents. First of all, in the broader context, what happened with the gas explosion–every municipality does have an emergency plan. That's a statutory requirement.

We certainly saw there a very quick response–and I do want to credit, by the way, the pipeline for their involvement, TransCanada Pipelines did react fairly quickly. We were able to co-ordinate with the municipalities and we particularly were able to get emergency gas supplies into, you know, key infrastructure. That was important. And I do want to credit everyone, you know, from those that had to fight the fire or deal with it in very challenging circumstances.

And I can tell you, we also have a provincial exercise for everybody that tested our provincial response capacity for the oil industry, you know, focus on any potential rail incident. So we are–we're not only–we not only have plans, but we are working to ensure that we have appropriate response. By the way, on the oil side and hazardous goods side we've had experience with derailments. There was a significant one a few years ago. So we're– you know, we've had some ability to assess that. We've also–though EMO we've also started a process to make sure that we talk to all of the critical infrastructure providers.

I mean, having continuity and continuity planning is critical. Many of the key providers of services have very significant plans, but what did strike me, for example, with what happened with the gas explosi on–we were able to get compressed gas in as a backup, which proved very valuable. Many other areas of the province, increasingly hydro is the primary source of heat. It does raise the question–and I certainly asked it–what if, say, the city of Thompson wa s to have a shutdown in hydro service, you know, with the kind of temperatures we have?

Believe me, I've had the hydro go on my place twice; once was on Christmas day, and it was -37 and I –what I–what struck me is how quickly the temperature drops. That wa s one – probably the most memorable Christmas we spent, but not in the good sense. But, you know, it just showed the degree to us–there's different dimensions on what might happen with that interruption. But I do want to say on the pipeline stuff, I thought the–I mean, the company's obviously going to have to, you know, look at what happened. But, certainly, our experience is they did respond well and the municipalities did a terrific job.

So I –you know, it shows the degree to which the emergency planning–you know, that we have a good state of emergency planning and our municipalities are relatively prepared. * (10:50) On the transportation of oil by rail, this is a major concern for us as a province. As Minister responsible for Transportation I co -chaired the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting with the federal minister. I do want to commend the federal minister, by the way, for some of the response that they put in place, particularly following Lac-Mégantic. You know, it's absolutely critical in two ways that we deal with this.

One is just the broader issue of transporting hazardous goods, but has a particular impact on –Bakken oil field, because the–you know, the oil that was, you know, explosive in Lac-Mégantic, came from the Bakken oil field. There are some specific issues related to, you know, potential volatility. And, you know, so it –to my mind, it's important for the continuation, to my mind, of this–you know, the expansion of the oil industry, particularly in our area. So it's got, sort of, two ends.

Very quickly, the big–some of the major concerns are, and I'll put it on record by the way, it's actually–a lot of people assume it's the rail companies that are more directly responsible than they are. They have certain elements which are under their control. We'd like to see more information to municipalities on hazardous goods that go through their community –not just oil, but others. But on the other side, there's this ongoing concern about the kind of cars that are used. There are the n ew cars that are doubly reinforced, you know, the valves, et cetera. They're not actually owned by the rail companies.

The rail companies themselves own very few rail cars that transport crude oil. But you've got a continued increase in terms of use of rai l because of lack of pipeline capacity, so it's an ongoing concern. I do want to say that we are going to continue to focus on this issue. I won't get into detail, but we've raised concern about OmniTRAX transporting crude oil through the Port of Churchi ll, impacts on the environment, safety issues. I can also add, back to the emergency prep side, we've written to all RMs offering to assist with planning related to hazardous

1224 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 goods moved by rail. So, you know, we're making sure that they not only have an existing plan, but that it's up to date. And they –there has been a move by the federal government on goods. Unfortunately, it's after the fact, in terms of what does go through municipalities. It's a start. Municipalities will have a much better idea of wha t does go through their communities. But we'd like to see real time on information.

The member mentioned emergency service providers; we believe the goal should be to get a real-time information source being available so that if you have a derailment in a community, that the emergency responders know what's in it. And I want to stress, by the way, there's been a lot of focus in on crude oil, you know, bitumen–that end of it. And it's understandable after what happened in Lac -Mégantic. People are expectin g much better regulation and much better systems in place. I mean, it's just not acceptable post -Lac Mégantic to have anything other than a wholesale improvement.

But having said that, there are a lot of other hazardous goods go through communities on a daily basis. Some of them probably even more significant in terms of potential impact on communities in the case of a derailment or, dare I say, an explosion. So when we're focusing on crude oil, that's only one element. And I do–and I just want to finish again by, in the broader sense, saying that I think there's been a very significant response by everyone involved. I want to credit the rail companies too.

Both CN and CP have been, I believe, stepping up on this, it's important to know, but in Lac-Mégantic it was not a– one of the two major rail companies, it was a short line that was involved. But even the short lines, I think, are also increasingly aware of this. So we are aware of this, and we're doing our part through EMO and our part through MIT. Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): And, being as we're talking about water issues, it fits very well in what some of the questions I had wanted to ask. And I want to ask about the process that's going on in the Portage Diversion right now.

There's some work going on both at the control structure and at the – down towards the outstream outlet. It looks a little bit like delayed or regular maintenance. Is that –can the minister confirm that's the process that's going on? Mr. Ashton : Yes, we've been in some rehabs and maintenance; yes, that's correct. Mr. Wishart: Well, thank you, Mr. Minister. Does that include work that might be done on the outlet structure? Because , as the minister knows, considerable improvement in the capacity of the diversion has gone on post–during 2011 and post-2011 to all of the structures except that one.

It's been left basically the same as it was. It's looking pretty tired and, in fact, looking somewhat damaged. The minister give me any indication whether anything will be done at the outlet? Mr. Ashton: We're looking at that right now. We're doing the technical analysis, and that's certainly something we're not only considering, I'd say it's most likely that we will proceed. But we're getting the technical reports on that. The member's quite correct; that is an area where we should be looking at, and we are looking at. Mr. Wishart: And I appreciate the comments.

With a target date in mind, just so that the locals can – would know, do you have any idea? Mr. Ashton : We're looking within –with our five - year capital program. A lot of it will depend on what the engineering–the degree to which we will have to make changes on it. But it's on our five -year capital planning–I want to say horizon, you know, we're – once we get the technical work we'll just proceed with it.

Yes, and I should stress, too, in addition to this immediate structural issue, there is also the capacity issue or the operational issue, so the study itself is looking at not just, you know, the gates themselves or any other component of the Portage Diversion; it's looking at, really, sort of what its current design should be. I mean, it really, you know, hasn't changed that much since the–since it was established in–you know, we're talking decades ago now. So it – this is the key element, is actually getting it with a fully functional plan and then fully upgrading it.

I also want to add, too–and I realize it's a bit outside of the scope –we've included the Portage Diversion–wouldn't say outside of the scope, not outside of the scope, the question. I just want to reiterate that we are also looking at the operating rules for all our flood structures. We will be proceeding with that. We've put in place the process. I've also asked someone the member knows well, David Faurschou, former MLA –seems the member's continuing the tradition of MLAs from Portage having first -hand knowledge of the Portage Diversion and putting the department and the minister on the spot.

I jokingly said when we

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1225 announced David Faurschou as the –as someone that's going to be working on the outreach that that was one time I always knew that he was better briefed than I was, because–and the member knows, when you're out there and you see it –[interjection] Yes, yes, when you see it directly. So we're also going to review the operating rules because they essentially haven't been reviewed from day one. We do have a statutory requirement to review the operating rules on the Red River Floodway as well.

So it seemed appropriate, with all the work we're doing on flood mitigation, to include that. So we will be consulting, we will be looking at all those operational rules, because, certainly, that's been a concern over the years, particularly in and around the Portage Diversion itself. And I'm not – there's no preconception about what the end re sult might be, other than the fact that it's time to do our–a thorough review, and that's what we're going to also do, in addition to all the capital planning that we're in and the rehabilitation we're doing on the structures. Mr.

Wishart: Well, and I tha nk the minister for the additional comments on the operating guidelines. That was my next question. I wanted to know where–what the status was and when, in fact, you might anticipating have a different set of operating guidelines. And I did want to throw into that blend as well, I noted in the comments –well, in the budget speech, there was reference to supplying water to CentrePort, and I've heard, certainly, through the media that the site that they–or the source that they're looking at is, in fact, the lower Assiniboine.

If that was the truth, wouldn't that have some impact on the operating guidelines, really, on the whole lower river system and all the way back to Shellmouth because water storage would become a different issue in that whole complicated factor, and is that part of the criteria? Mr. Ashton: Well, now, that's an interesting point, and, of course, not everybody knows the issue –one of the issues with CentrePort was finding a source other than Shoal Lake, and, certainly, there is an agreement to proceeding with that.

I'm not sure what the flows would be, but any analysis of what happens on the Assiniboine would have to look at all of the users. * (11:00) You know, there are significant users in and around Portage right now. We tend to forget that, I mean, the Shellmouth Dam, for example, you know, it–most years it's really helping us provide a regulated, guaranteed water supply in the Assiniboine. Without it, you know, a lot of the heavy, water -intensive agriculture just wouldn't be possible in and around Portage. I look at well, potatoes, and anything on the vegetable side.

The member knows this more directly than I do but i t, you know, we –and one of the things I think out of the review and some of broader aspects is I'm also hoping that there's also kind of a broader understanding of everybody's perspective because, you know, I often–I mean, I recognize, you know, there are different views even in the member's constituency of, you know, people, say, in and around the diversion itself versus those that benefit from the, you know, the control aspects because I think what's happened is, generally speaking, outside of, you know, people that really follow it, a lot of the general public doesn't appreciate the balance that's been–that was put in place, the original broad vision.

We often tend to forget how much the Shellmouth plays a role, in terms of flood regulation, but in –you know, if there's not a broader understanding of the impact on the ag side of as well, I mean I often hear people who ar e quite critical of the operation of the Shellmouth, and I do appreciate that can impact on people negatively and that's one of the reasons we have compensation put in place for landowners in the immediate area, but if you were to pick the single–like, outside of the flood impact, I'm talking about the single most important water control structure in Manitoba, it's the Shellmouth, in terms of value added.

And without the Shellmouth, I mean, some of the –some of the most –some of the highest priced land in Manitoba, some of the –you know, in fact, the greatest increase is in around Portage. The member knows this first-hand, and a lot of it is because of the short water supply. Without that, and particularly when you're looking at major investors, you know, they need water that's there every year.

You know, the potato industry would, you know, would not exist without it, and I'm hoping out of this process that we end up with better operating rules, more generally, but also a broader understanding of everybody's perspective and maybe that will factor into the, you know, operating rules that are not only seen as fair, fairer than now, but actually are kind of more broadly seen as fair because I think it's, you know –because we haven't done this review in a broader sc ale. I think over the years a lot of people have lost sight of what the real intent of the structure was.

1226 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 And I have to say, by the way, we give a lot of credit to the vision for the Red River Floodway and, yes, it's prevented $38- billion worth of damage. Notwithstanding that, you know, that there are always impacts, but the Shellmouth, the Portage Diversion and the Fairford have had huge beneficial impacts over the years, and we believe by the way, you know, that the completion of the Lake St. Martin outlet will essentially finish the job, you know, that was started.

So I'm hopeful this review will also, you know, get a new generation of understanding in terms of what the trade -offs are and some –perhaps some empathy for all, you know, some of the negative impacts, as well, because, you know, that's part of the–you know, there are years in which there are trade-offs and I appreciate that. Mr.

Wishart: I appreciate the minister's comments and I do–I certainly understand that we have a need for better understa nding on who's using the river system and certainly it's not even appreciated by some of the people in the area that we have significant domestic water use out of that source, as well, and of course we need to maintain that both for the city of Portage, ci ty of Brandon, but there's also quite a bit downstream in the Cartier water system that really derives most of its water originally from the Assiniboine. So we all have to look at where that is.

And, related to that, I was wondering where – what the status was with the gate project at Shellmouth. I know KGS has that as part of their mandate, I suspect, and the big picture, but that one was sort of on the books before and I'm wondering if there's a chance that that one can –may be going ahead on a priorized basis. Mr. Ashton: Yes, there's a bit of history there. The original lead on that was the federal government. They backed out. That did lead to a significant delay in the project. We've undertaken basically to take over the management of the project. It doe s have some benefit.

It would not have made any difference to 2011 with the water flows that were there but does add greater capacity in terms of that. That work is being done. The Shellmouth is still scheduled for, you know, for an enhancement to it, to i ts facilities. Again, I won't get into length, but it's proven its worth time and time again. I also want to acknowledge, by the way, while I'm on the Shellmouth and, you know, the degree to which we're also moving ahead on the new system in terms of the compensation for the landowners in the area, it is statutory now. We did have some delays because of the 2011 flood.

I know this was a question in Estimates yesterday and I just, you know, we're going to get further information on the status of the compensation. But again, as we proceed we now have the–much more of the baseline experience. Up– prior to the compensation there were programs put in place, but they were ad hoc programs, and we're anticipating as we proceed that there'll be much greater ability to–even in significant flood years to be able to respond to that.

But, yes, we are back on track in terms of, you know, the broader ability to enhance the Shellmouth, and it's not that we're looking up on the capital side as well to sort out our intention. I can get the member an update on some of the current time frames, but it is an active project, yes. Mr. Wishart: Well, and that'd certainly be appreciated, Minister, if you could give me an update as to where that project is at. While we're talking abo ut projects, there's still some small scale work being done on the lower Assiniboine dikes.

I suspect a portion of it is in response to the 2011 flood and some repairs that are continued on there. And I have heard from some constituents that there's been s ome people approached to purchase property along there, because it is one of those problem areas in the province where old titles exist and many of the landowners actually own the–or own the land right to the river's edge, which means that the dikes that have been there for many, many years are often on private property, so getting it clear who has the right to work on them and who has the responsibility for damages.

Is there any long -term plan there, or are what we're seeing so far just response to the 2011 damages, as there was no separate program for that area? It was left out of the–of all the programs. Mr. Ashton: The member's correct. There are some landowner issues. We're going through due process on that, and he's quite correct that it is more complicated there because, again, a lot of the diking is on private land. So we have to, you know, respect the property owners, and where we don't come to agreement we have a proper process to go through and we are proceeding with that.

The member's quite correct, we have a multi -year process upgrading the Assiniboine dikes. We did a significant amount of work during the flood, just prior to and during the flood in 2011.

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1227 The key issue is going to be dealt with, again, through the KGS study. One of the key f indings– already we found, you know, the real -time findings in 2011 was the actual capacity of the Assiniboine dikes, which is –historically was certainly probably 22,000 cfs, you know, to its maximum. We were running it maybe 18, and that's –[interjection] The other issue, too, is the 22 was over a short period of time and, again, reminded that the dikes were able to handle it.

What was probably one of the biggest achievements in the 2011 flood was the degree to which we were able to operate–you know, the capacity was to get through the Assiniboine for as long a period of time as we did and there are a number of reasons why. I–you know, I want to credit the military, by the way. They came in at a key time. Some of their surveillance equipment and the stuff that came off the battlefield, so to speak, and was able to identify trouble spots.

I mean, you know, you could basically–I'm holding up a glass of water here for Hansard's purpose –but, you know, the sensitivity was right down to this level overnight. I mean, I remember asking one time how many breaches there were, and I kind of regretted that, because when you considered, you know, you'd be running 30- plus overnight breaches, that gave us the ability to absolutely mobilize our staff on the ground and our contracting capabilities.

So there was a significant, you know, investment, and if we hadn't been able to maintain the Assiniboine dikes, I'm sure everyone knows what the potential impact would've been of any kind of breakout east of Portage. It would've bee n very, very significant in terms of damage. So I want to indicate that we will be looking at that. * (11:10) We did look in the flood, by the way, at –if there was anything that could be done.

One of the difficulties, to my mind, with the Assiniboine, a s the member knows, essentially, the dikes are, you know, above ground level, so essentially, you end up with some significant structural issues. You also, too, and not–you know, being the layperson, it's not illogical that if you actually control rivers o ver time, what happens is you don't get the flushing out of, you know, major floods to the same degree. So there's all sorts of issues. We did look at even at dredging. Everybody assumes dredging is kind of a simple solution; it's not.

Not only is it not simple, it's also expensive and not always that effective. So there's no simple solutions there, but clearly with KGS, at a minimum we ne ed to look at the design standards for the existing dikes. Do we need to enhance them? And, again, we do recognize that every cfs we can get running through the Assiniboine in a major flood is a cfs that's not going to go elsewhere, you know, through the Portage Diversion. So it is a high priority, but I don't want to leave any illusion.

I don't think there's any simple solutions, but at a minimum, ensuring the integrity of the dikes is job No. 1 in that area. Mr. Wishart: I appreciate the minister's com ments, and I would like to commend the department for actually working on the Assiniboine River dikes when there's not a flood. The locals tell me that that's never happened before. It always seems to be a flood year when we try to work on them, which is absolutely the worst year to work on them. They're usually in a semi-liquid form by that year anyway, so it is actually good timing to try and deal with some of the issues.

And I would encourage the minister and his staff to look at some of the Dutch examples on how to deal with rivers that are perched river systems, as the minister indicated, that are above ground level. The Dutch have been doing this for a long time. They have a philosophy or approach that they call Room for the River, which is a tiered, flood-plain approach within the river channel, and which may actually work very well in this situation. And you don't have to move both dikes.

You might have to move one dike in some places to accommodate that, but I think it might prove to be the only rea lly viable long-term solution. We just seem to keep going up and up and up, and as the minister's pointed out, when you don't run the river at full capacity regularly, it does tend to silt, and there is not a great deal that can be done to do–to deal with that.

That river –you talk about dredging and then you sit down and figure out how much silt is being moved down–how many tonnes of silt are being moved down that river annually, you quickly realize that that's just not a viable option, that the volumes a re just beyond the scale of any potential dredging. I wanted to move on just briefly, and the minister touched upon it earlier, the problem with drainage enforcement–and Saskatchewan has issues and Manitoba has it–and we've had quite a number of cases go to court, and, certainly, some of them

1228 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 probably deserve to go there but every now and then we hear about one where someone –in this case it's the widow of the person involved–is being dragged into court, and not only did she not do the work, he didn't do the work. The farm was purchased with an issue on it, apparently, that was not disclosed at the time, and there –she's ending up in court over a drainage licence– or it was licensed but apparently not adequately covered under the system. We're not quite sure where the fallout was.

I would encourage the minister, and I know this offer has been made to the department before, to look at arbitration rather than court cases. Most of these people that are very willing to go through an arbitration process. It's neve r been offered. It would be a much more low -cost solution, and frankly I think the minister would be able to get the compensation, off-stream storage and things like that that people would be co- operative on, far more than being dragged through court, beca use the minute it gets into court, lawyers get involved and options become much more limited.

So I wonder if this minister could commit to have a look at the option of arbitration in some of these cases rather than litigation. Mr. Ashton : The actual enfo rcement, of course, is Conservation and Water Stewardship. I will certainly relate the suggestion to the minister. The member may want to raise it during the Estimates. It's certainly a–I think it an interesting idea. The key issue to my mind is twofold: one is having sufficient enforcement consequences for illegal drainage, and, you know, I don't think that's an issue. But it does raise the issue of restoration, and that's often the difficulty.

You can–you know, if and when you nail someone in terms of the illegal drainage, the damage is done for downstream and surrounding landowners. So it's an interesting concept. I do know there are var ious judicially assisted processes, and we have some of which our department goes through which do bring in arbitration model through– you know, through a judge. So there are some ideas, so I think it's worthwhile. Very quickly, on the Dutch side, it's interesting; I just met with the Dutch ambassador.

He offered their experience on water, and we did point out –my deputy pointed out that much of the initial work that was done on, you know, the floodway and many of the other elements of our current flood system that we take a lot of pride in, was done by Dutch-Canadian engineers, Cass–Edward Kuiper and Cass Booy, both D utch. So we–so, in a way, we can learn from the Dutch and maybe they can take some pride in the Dutch-Canadian connection here.

So the member's quite correct, and I do want to stress, by the way, that even though we have a reputation, I think, worldwide now, because of a lot of what we've done –and I hear this all the time, you know, in terms of our engineers. You know, we are the pre -eminent flood jurisdiction. You may have seen, you know, with our new flood forecaster, you know, he told the story publicly as to, sort of, why he came–Dr. Unduche–to Manitoba. He googled flood and– An Honourable Member: What came up? Mr. Ashton : What came up? Manitoba. Yes. So floods are us. But we still are learning.

We still are –we also– by the way, I should mention, I think, a very significant capacity on the emergency response side. We've worked with jurisdictions as far, you know, as apart as the Czech Republic. They have a lot of experience with flooding. EMO has been –has an ongoing relationship, and, actually, with the Philippines. In fact, a lot of people aren't aware of this but, in fact, Lee Spencer and a delegation from EMO were actually in the Philippines.

We've had a number of technical exchange missions in the –some of the hardest hit areas just months before, you know, the devastating impact of what happened there with the –you know, the massive destruction that took place from that disaster. So we do have a fair amount of experience, and we're–we both are prepared to share it and to learn from it. In fact, we 're in discussions right now, and certainly the member for Tyndall Park (Mr.

Marcelino) is part of that, as well, with the Philippines, because we also are offering any which way we can to be part of their ongoing recovery and emergency planning for the future, because, again, we do have a lot of experience with this, and, you know, we look forward to being able to assist the Philippines. So that international connection is pretty significant for all aspects of this department. Mr. Wishart: I certainly appreciate the minister's comments and answers related to that, and I would encourage him to continue working with the Dutch.

They've certainly had to learn their share of lessons the hard way over the years, and they seem to have

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1229 retained some lesson from them. Sometimes I think we–it doesn't happen–seem to happen as often here, and, as such, we forget more quickly in the period of time in between. Happens fairly frequently for them, so they –it's certainly front and centre, and they've had some lessons. But I did want to touch briefly on the rail safety issue. Of course, I also represent the c ity of Portage, and, in the city, it's the last place the two major rail lines touch before they get to the west coast, so we certainly see a lot of traffic.

Especial ly, we've seen an awful increase in the oil tankers, and I encourage the minister to develop a good system to work with the city and the RM in terms of informing them on the risk assessments in there, and hopefully we never have an example like occurred in Lac-Mégantic in Quebec. Of course, we don't have any hills, so I don't think the train will roll away on us. * (11:20) But, we also have a couple of other sites that we're kind of worried about, including west of Portage where it crosses a diversion and then goes on–the railways cross a diversion and go on. There is a fertilizer storage there.

It also includes a very large anhydrous ammonia facility which is quite close to the rail lines, and some of the constituents around there have expressed considerable concern about whether that has been planned for through EMO. If we had any damage to that structure it would be –of course, prevailing winds there are to the northwest which would bring any leakage from that site right down on No. 1 Highway at an import ant juncture. I wondered if that has been part of emergency planning and if we have a contingency plan specific to that. Mr.

Ashton: Well, I appreciate the member raising the issue of other hazardous commodities, because I always stress when we talk about crude oil it's not the only hazardous commodity. I know the federal government is increasingly recognizing it is a hazardous good, but every day through populated areas, rural areas, there are all sorts of other hazardous commodities. Fertilizer is one of them and, you know, chlorine–I could run through the list, any one of which could create a significant risk if there was an unforeseen circumstance.

As I stressed before, every municipality does have an emergency plan, and we're certainly making sure that we are working with the municipalities through all of our normal planning exercises and have contacts to ensure that there's a full recognition of al l hazards. And what I think is particularly important to note here –and I think the member is on to an important aspect that includes not only natural disasters which, of course , you know, people traditionally think of. A nd that includes Manitoba, not just floods, obviously, the forest fires, includes tornadoes.

You know, the level 5 tornado at Eli, a good example of how we have to be increasingly concerned about tornadoes, not that they're new to Manitoba, but the severity and the frequency has increased w ith, you know, climate change over the last number of years. So there are numerous natural disasters, but we also have to be cognizant of the complexity of potential risk on hazardous goods both in terms of existing sites, you know, storage sites, and al so in terms of the transportations sites. So I'll undertake to make sure that we're–we follow up in terms of the specific sites. I appreciate it.

I do want to assure the member again that –and I know he knows this, but perhaps more to his constituents–all hazard planning is really a key part of what we're dealing with, as is, by the way –one of the things I was going to add is continuity. Ironically, going back to Y2K, which was probably the–turned out to be the biggest non- event in history–[interjection]–oh, yeah –but probably the best planning, you know, exercise. A lot of the experience came out of that was a recognition of how vulnerable a lot of critical infrastructure can be.

I mean, with its –when I say critical infrastructure we're talking hospitals, for example, what happens in terms of food, you know, et cetera. And there were some very good experience come out of the planning for that that got people to realize that you could end up with a cascading effect. And there's been subsequent exercises to do with potential for, you know, impacts of pandemics on critical facilities. So, you know, ironically, in a way, starting in that period –and there've been various other events. You know, 9/11 had some impact on the recognition. You could also have terr orism.

You know, the degree of planning right now is light years ahead of where it was. But it is ever -evolving, and I'll make sure we follow up on the specific sites the member's talking about that I appreciate him raising. Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): Following up on the question from the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Smook), there was some discussion of FleetNet and emergency communications. I think I heard the minister say that they're looking at changing,

1230 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 upgrading the system, and the current provider, I believe, is MTS and Motorola equipment, and can you give me a timeline on when we're looking at upgrading or changing the system? Mr. Ashton : The lead is actually Jobs and the Economy. They deal with the telecommunications side, but I can say that we are in discussions. I certainly know there are ongoing discussions with MTS, and the goal, again, is to get a updated FleetNet system because it is a critical one.

One of the key issues, and I mentioned briefly in the previous question, that if you talk to emergency service providers, one of the key issues is actually to deal with ensuring that there's seamless communication, same platform. So, but learning from experience, that was one of the issues with 9/11. I mean, the various different elements in emergency response couldn't communicate. There wasn't a common platform. And, you know, that was a huge issue across the world. After that, people recognized that you, at a minimum, you got to make sure your emergency service providers can communicate with each other.

So we're anticipating some developments on this probably next period of time. You know, again, the goal is to get an updated system. Mr. Helwer: Sure, so I imagine I have to go to Jobs and the Economy to ask much about it. But perhaps the minister would know if we expect to continue with the current providers, or is it something that's going to go to tender, or what stage are we at in the process? Mr. Ashton : There will be an RFP process. So it would again depend on the potential service providers and, again, in terms of the timing of that, that Jobs and the Economy's the lead on that. Mr.

Helwer: So going back to a question we started on the other day, in terms of tenders, kind of on the same topic, the minister was reluctant to talk about the Auditor General's report and directed me to another venue. So we will certainly continue that, but we're also going to have to, I think, do a little more analysis of this.

So, in order to do that, we will need some information, if we can, from the department, in terms of whether the minister can provide copies of all contracts of the department and any of the special operating agencies that would fall under MIT's jurisdiction relating to under –untendered contracts. And the AG used a number of a thousand dollars, so anything over a thousand dollars for untendered contracts for fiscal years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012- 13. There's a lot of work to be done here , obviously, and we'd like to start that work. Is it p ossible to be provided with that information? Mr.

Ashton : That is actually all disclosed for the LBIS, and I want to indicate it's not a question of being reluctant to discuss the OAG. It struck me that some of the questions were really more Public Accounts, and if they do go to Public Accounts, we would be there at Public Accounts and we'd be in a position to provide, you know, detailed information in terms of that. But this information is available on LBIS. I want to stress, as well, too, that I did identify yesterday–ran it through some detailed information, the kind of categories that we look at.

The primary category we deal with when we go to untendered situations, the vast bulk of what we're dealing with is either where you have a pre- qualified list of service providers, and that pre -qualification ensures a fair system that also protects the financial interests of the Province. So, you know –and a lot of that, by the way, is if you're looking at the type of contracts –you know, if you go to a tender s ystem, in some cases, the big issue's delay. So, you know, we have to make sure the work is done. So we do the prep work. And the other one is emergency situations.

You have a boiler goes out, you got to get someone in right away. That does happen. * (11:30) But, certainly, you know, outside of the flood, I outlined yesterday, for example, our buildings, 90 per cent -plus of our contracts are done through tendering, and it's only through exceptional circumstances that we go otherwise. That would've been a higher number of contracts during the flood and, again, we just don't have the time to do an RFP during a flood. We worked with established contractors.

We actually feel that the prices we're able to get were fair and reflected what we would have received in a tender situation. I want to stress, by the way, too, we have a lot of experience with tendering, so we do know, even when we have to go outside of tendering, what the specific cost factors are and–you know, so we do reflect that end. And, actually, through the tendering process, we–you know, I want to stress again that we have been able –bring that –quite a few projects in under budget. You know, you never hear about the ones

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1231 that are under budget, but I could– I even have a list if the member's in terested. It sort of –you know, maybe I'll read it into the record sometime, but it–there's some –been some examples of some significant cost savings, and I, by the way, I give credit to the department on managing the projects, but also the industry. You know, the providers that are out there, it's a–there's been a lot of additional work. There's going to be even more. There's –but it shows there's a fairly competitive situation.

So that's why our –outside of some, you know, some exceptional circumstances, o ur primary focus in MIT is on the tender system. Mr. Helwer: Well, I would be, indeed, be interested and listen. I don't want to take up committee time to do it, so perhaps we can do that at another time if the minister wants to communicate to us the projects that he feels have gone exceptionally well, like the ones that have come in under tender and under budget. Always interested in things that are done well.

So that's –as I said, don't want to take up committee–this Estimates time to do that, but we can do it at another time and we'll figure out how that can happen, I guess. Mr. Ashton: Maybe at Public Accounts. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes. My first question really is a follow -up on some that Ian Wishart was asking on the region along the Assiniboine River from Portage la Prairie to Winnipeg. I think it's pretty clear that there needs to be a formal plan there for, you know, how things are managed during a flood and where dikes will be and where they won't be and so on.

When will the minister be able to present such a formal plan? Mr. Ashton: Yes, it's being done right now by KGS, and we're anticipating preliminary report later on this year. And I do want to, again, acknowledge I know the member knows that area well, and we are –it's going to be a comprehensive review of all of the key elements. We talked about the Assiniboine dikes earlier, that's one component, but it's a broader based review of what the situation is in terms of flooding, flood mitigation. But, again, it'll be in later this year. Mr. Gerrard: Yes.

The –I mean, in terms of planning along a river like that, and the Assiniboine is a good example, that there are areas where there are dikes and there's areas where the water is let flow out onto farmland.

And that the experience in, for example, rivers along Massachusetts, it's often much more cost -effective to allow some areas where the water can spread out onto farmland than to build up dikes in those areas, for a number of reasons, but one being that, downstream, if you build up dikes there and you keep the river in a narrow channel , then you're going to have more flow going directly downstream and you're going to have to have higher dikes further downstream.

And, you know, I say this because it was pretty apparent that there are some spots along the Assiniboine River in 2011 where the level was pretty close further downstream to houses and you were having to have significant numbers of houses put up major numbers of sandbags and so on. So what –will the plan include, you know, a recognition that there's areas where the water will flow out of–over farmland? Mr. Ashton: Yes, and it again is–the suggestion that the member is putting forward is something that is very much on the agenda both in this area and elsewhere. Mr.

Gerrard: In terms of the plan, one of the things that's been a problem in downstream from Lake of the Prairies is that there was not ahead of time an approach that would recognize that in some instances where farmers' fields are flooded, there should be some compensation. Will that be part of this plan? Mr. Ashton: And more broadly, it's something we're also looking at. Generally –I raised this earlier –it's something that is being looked at in the States. I've met with some municipal leaders in terms of that. It's an interesting concept.

I mean, it's more complicated than it appears on first notice, because you obviously have to get into what kind of compensation, you know, and that's–the devil's always in the detail. But I think the member's pointed to, you know, the fact that there's different ways of doing storage. But one of the –you know, the idea of doing storage on private land with compensation has to be looked at. And it's particularly applica ble in the Assiniboine valley, b ecause in the Assiniboine valley, and this was pointed out earlier, you–even the dikes are actually on private land. You know, you have a lot of private land.

You don't have a lot of Crown land, you know, that you can use for –you know, for storage. And there are many other areas in the province, again, where it's very much the same

1232 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 sort of circumstance. So we will indeed be looking at it. And one of the things that we're also hoping through this is that there'll be a clear recognition at the federal level. The irony with a lot of this, by the way, is the federal government's in for 90 per cent of, you know, the cost sharing through DFA. The member knows that from his former role in –you know, as federal minister. And–but –getting the connection to mitigation and, dare I say, if it's something as creative as this kind of approach, it's more difficult.

And so–and, you know, if we're able to limit damage from floods, the biggest beneficiary outside of the Manitobans who aren't flooded, obviously–which is the No. 1 concern–is actually the federal government. And we're still trying to get a commit ment to a national mitigation strategy that's strategic, doesn't come out of existing infrastructure and recognizes the full cost benefit.

And the full cost benefit should include not only damage, but if we are able to use innovative approaches such as thi s to avoid damage, to my mind, on a business -case scenario, there should be real consideration for some sort of a cost share with the federal government to make it feasible. So we're hoping there'll be a broader discussion on this, and we think, actually , that that kind of approach nationally would be very beneficial both in terms of flood protection, but would actually, quite frankly, save Canadians money.

And given some of the challenges all governments are under, we think this kind of approach could be a–I–you know, very creative, and could dramatically change the way we deal floods. So the member raises a very important point, and we are looking at it, yes. Mr. Gerrard: The point was that this would be a really good time to set the framework for that when one is doing the plan, rather than, you know, do the plan in other areas and then address this later on, as has sort of happened upstream along the Assiniboine below the Lake of the Prairies.

My next question deals with when are we going to see the plan in terms of for people in Lake St. Martin and Little Saskatchewan and Dauphin River, in terms of–and know when they will be back in their homes in their communities? Mr. Ashton: First of all, the technical work on the two outlets is proceeding. I know that's not the immediate, you know, focus of the question, but I want to stress that. We've also clearly earmarked the funding, and I want to stress the –you know, the significance that the work we did during the flood had on Lake St.

Martin and Lake Manitoba, and how clearly that's a key focus for us in terms of the ongoing resolution on what's happening. * (11:40) In terms of the current situation, in terms of evacuees and in terms of with the communities, as the member knows, we did set aside a hundred million dollars last fiscal year for any and all of the discussions that are ongoing in regards to the four communities. We are making significant progress on a number of fronts. The key issue here, by the way, as the member knows –and I do acknowledge, by the way, the degree to which he has taken the time to visit the communities.

He knows from his discussions with the communities what the challenge is. In many cases there just simply wasn't the housing for people to go back to. People were in housi ng that even prior to the flood had significant water -based issues: mold, you know, basements in, you know, a very high water table. We had situations where people could simply not go back to their home community. We've been in discussions –and, again, I w ant to acknowledge again where, you know, this is government relationships we're dealing with here. In many cases we're talking altered locations on reserve.

We're talking about conversion to reserve, that's important. There's been a number of leadership changes, so some changes in direction at the First Nations level. But we are making some significant progress on generally agreed upon principles in terms of land reallocation. And, of course, as the member knows, we did put in place on an interim basis housing at the old Gypsumville radar site and we are now actually moving a lot of that housing into some of the affected communities. So we are making significant progress. I want to add another item too.

I know the committee's also raised issues in regards to interim temporary flood protection and there's an interest in establishing a regional EOC under the auspices of the Interlake Tribal Council, and we're certainly seriously looking at that. And I know our lead minister on this file, being the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Robinson), is also in contact with his federal counterpart, so we're making significant progress. I'm hoping to see in this upcoming year some specific situations where we're

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1233 going to see people actually moving back. A s I indicated, there are some houses that have been allocated to members of the community. So that will take place. And our goal is to get permanent flood protection that will ensure that this kind of situation will not happen again, you know, the 2011 sce nario, but more important than that, to make sure that when people are back home they're in flood-protected areas and housing that is decent housing and that they don't have to go through this again. It's been a very traumatic time for all the communities impacted.

By the way, I want to stress, too, there are other communities, Peguis, a similar situation. But the fact that that case goes back to 2009–and a lot of this comes down to the reserve system itself. I mean, a lot of the land that reserves sit on is some of the most flood -prone marginal land anywhere in Manitoba, and what we're doing in the case of these communities is actually we're changing history.

We're actually doing, to my mind, what should have happened, you know, at the time of the signing of the treaties and the establishment of the reserves, which is getting people in to situations where it's land that's not chronically flooded. And I think there's a very significant amount of money that's been put aside. There's going to be some signi ficant progress this year because we've had some very good discussions, and I want to acknowledge the federal government has been very supportive. The minister has been very engaged directly on this. So I think the member's going to see some significant movement.

And, again, when people move back, this is not a temporary situation. We're looking at getting people back on a permanent basis. That's what they've wanted, that's what they've needed for decades and that's what they're going to get. Mr. Gerrard: Just a clarification. The $100 million which was set aside that may be spent, you know, this coming fiscal year or the year after or whenever, I presume. Is that the case? This is a –not a normal sort of budget where the dollars lapse at the end of the fiscal year. Mr.

Ashton : That's correct, b ecause given the complexity for First Nations, various different issues and the degree to which, you know, it's going to be on a multi -year solution, we've identified that –the need to make sure the money was there –it is. And, by the way, that's the provincial el ement. This is going to be cost shared with the federal government. And, so, it will be there on a multi-year basis, and we want to make sure that finance wasn't the issue. And, as the member knows, I mean, we, you know, like every government, we have to make tough decisions on the finance side.

We do have to a target, obviously, to balance the various elements to our fiscal policy. But, the clear message, by putting $100 million aside, is that this is an ab solute priority for our government, and we want to make sure that lack of finance was not the issue. The finances have been set aside. And, again, with the cost -sharing from the federal government, this is –this would be a very significant step towards a pe rmanent solution there.

And, quite frankly, if you add in the fact that we've already allocated $250 million, and the significant priority for that is the ability to turn the temporary outlet, the emergency outlet, from Lake St. Martin into a permanent outlet, there is going to be a very significant investment in correcting –to my mind, which is this–a historically unfair situation for those communities. Let's not forget that since the early 1960s, since '61 -62, there was the Fairford outlet but no outlet out of Lake St. Martin. And the member knows this so I'm not –you know, I know he's more than aware of this.

It was looked at in '78, it was rejected at the time –should have been built. We built the first artificial outlet. We did it in full consultation with all First Nations. We dropped the level on the flood in 2000 and very significantly. But our goal is to get permanent flood protection and to get people back into the communities in flood-protected areas with flood-protected houses. Mr.

Gerrard: One brief clarification on the $100 million that the minister referred to the funding for the outlet, is that funding to produce the outlet part of that $100 million, or is the $100 million just for ensuring that there's homes and livable communities for people in Lake St. Martin and Little Saskatchewan and Dauphin River? And does it include Peguis too? Mr. Ashton : The $100 million refers to four Lake St. Martin communities, and it does not include capital expenditures for flood mitigation. I can say that the First Nations themselves have put forward a proposal for an emergency operations centre.

It's under the auspices of the Interlake tribal council. They've indicated that they would be open to using that fund–you know, I want to say, that fund– but, you know, that allocation, for that purpose. There's been no decision on that. It's early stages of discussion, although, you know, certainly they have raised, I think, a legitimate concern about ensuring

1234 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 that there's adequate ability to respond to any kind of flood situations prior to the permanent mitigation. But the broader capital is something that will be done under our broader core infrastructure plan. It wouldn't come out of the $100 million. And if you look at $100 million cost -shared by the federal government, we're looking in excess of $200 million that would go a long way to resolving all of these issues: land allocation, housing, you also need some core infrastructure, you know, to serve those houses.

So, we–our main focus with that allocation is really on the housing and infrastructure, and the element of getting them back home. The flood stuff –the flood mitigation will be done through the broader provincial capital investment. And on Peguis –just a quick update on Peguis. There–you know, we did a lot of the technical work, the LiDAR surveying, we identified a lot of the issues. There's been some progress on movement of flood-impacted homes. I just met with Chief Hudson recently. Originally, the federal government had agreed and are in the proces s of moving 75 homes.

My understanding is there's some additional homes that have been added. But there's still a lot flood mitigation needs to take place in Peguis itself. * (11:50) Again, we've been pushing the federal government to recognize that Fir st Nations are impacted dramatically during floods, and there needs to be a real focus by the federal government on investments in flood mitigation on reserve. We're doing our bit with broader provincial investments, but they can make a real difference. In Peguis, for example, through–they have a lot of low-level crossings, internal infrastructure.

There's some–you know, we're in the tens of millions of dollars in terms investments, but the option with Peguis and any other of the affected communities is the federal government will be paying a lot more. We all will, and the communities themselves will primarily. The federal government is already now up to $90 million -plus for evacuation costs from the 2011 flood. And the logic there is, you know, with all the trauma it causes for people, is –isn't there a better use for $90 million and wouldn't that use be –start with flood mitigation? And that's our argument.

I'm not being overly critical of the federal government. There's some progress on the Lake St. Martin file. We still have a long way to go before we have a decent system for First Nations in terms of flood protection, and the Province is part of the solution, but we need the feds to be a significant part of it. Mr. Gerrard: To follow up and then a req uest. Follow-up is in relationship to the material that I asked for yesterday, and I presume you don't have it yet, but hopefully you will have it for Monday. I just want to make sure it's not forgotten. But I would also ask for two other lists.

In the five-year infrastructure plan there is a number for the amount of dollars spent on flood infrastructure in the 2013-14 year, the year just completed, and for the flood infrastructure in the 2014- 15 year. Could the minister provide a list of the projects whic h were done last year, and the list of the projects to be completed this year? Mr. Ashton: I most definitely haven't forgotten the previous request. It was a bit of a short turnaround with, you know, Estimates finishing at 5 and starting this morning. That would –be more than happy to provide that information, and we'll try and get it by Monday, yes.

Mr. Helwer: Over the last couple years, I've learned a little bit about proposition 27. Still have lots more to learn, but I'm interested in the minister's description of how it works. Is it something that is administered by EMO or accessed by EMO, and how does it function in, I guess in emergency situations when it's mostly used, if that's correct? Mr. Ashton : Well there may be sometimes where it's accessed in terms of disasters we deal with directly, but there's also forest fires, Conservation's the lead department.

As well what it does is it provides a budget item that, you know, provides funding for, you know, the needs that can arise out of that–any of those kind of situations. Of course, we don't know in advance in any given year what's going to happen. It varies quite a bit. Over the last number of years we've had very significant forest fires in some years, less so in others, floods in some years, le ss so in others. You know, there's –it varies. But the –you need a budget item that reflects that, and you know, this reflects kind of a broader experience over a period of time.

Of course, in a major flood like 2011, our total cost now is $1.2 billion and counting in terms of all costs–not, of course, all –you know, all of which would come under this line item. But, you know, you–in exceptional years you provide exceptional

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1235 funding and we did do it. So that's the broader catch-all in this particular case. You know, there has to be some line item that reflects the fact that – quite frankly, even in a good year, to restore impacts. It was a good year, like, you know, relatively non-eventful year, we often get, you know, spot storms that impact in certain municipalities. You know, we've had tornadoes, although tornadoes, by the way, are generally insurable. So there's often a lot more damage than is reflected in what–in terms of compensation.

You know, it's interesting on how–I'm still trying to figure out how tornadoes are insurable and floods, generally, aren't. One's

an act of God and one isn't. But you'd have to ask the insurance industry about that, because there's still really no logic to that at all other than the fact that we know that we get a flood, we're in it in a major way. You get a tornado, and the insurance industry actually absorbs most of the impact. Mr. Helwer: So is it administered by EMO, or who administers this prop osition 27 and where does it show–whose budget does it show up as a line item? Mr. Ashton : It's MIT, but EMO is now –is part of MIT, so it's this department, yes. Mr.

Helwer: So on an average year, which is what we're going into this year, presumably, until we find out different –what type of an allocation do you usually make into that? Mr. Ashton : Yes, I'm not sure this is an average year, the way the weather's been thus far. I hope it's not an average year; I hope it's not the new normal. And, yes, you know, essentially, if you look at the breakout, you can look at some of the expenditures we've identified on, I think, page 1, you know, 136 in terms of 27. And you can look at last year, the experience; this year, the projected experience.

You know, we're still dealing with 2011, by the way. I mean, that –I don't know if the member's aware of that, but it's a significant impact. But probably the most significant shift is we're –you know, less 2011 impacts. And, again, as it indicates, this is just–this is from historical averages. It has gone up over the last number of years, and that's not something that should be a surprise. I think this year we're calling it global warming–certainly not the last few months, but climate change is still very much a reality.

You talk to any of the scientists that we're dealing with, and there's greater severity of weather. And that means, actually, throughout the world, anyone, whether it's insurers or, you know, anyone with that –a mandate to deal with natural disasters or emergencies, they're all predicating a significant shift. It means two things: (1) is, you know, what might have been a one -in-a-hundred-year flood is – you know, is probably more frequent than one in a hundred years in any of our benchmarks, so we have to work–we have to be more prepared on the mitigation side. But the flip side is also on the payout side.

So that's what this reflects. It's gone up over the last number of years a nd, quite frankly, we're going to probably see that trend accelerate over the next few years. Mr. Helwer: So, when you're coming up with a number to put in there, obviously it's a –I don't know what else to call it other than a plug number, because it's not–you don't what's going to happen. What are some of the things that go into determining what that number would be? Obviously , you've got some expectations of a fire possibility or a flood, new flood forecaster, other things that might –that you might use to come up with that number. Mr.

Ashton : Well, a bunch is prepared well in advance of our flood outlook. We've had one outlook currently. We have a second that'll be coming out imminently. It's certainly well ahead of any of our sense of what might happen i n terms of forest fires. And we –you know, we might have an early indication of moisture levels, but, you know, forest fire–water of a lake can shift quite rapidly. So it really is–it's a historic average. It doesn't really take into account current issues. And much of our budget, as the member's probably aware, I mean, the budget preparation starts back in October.

By the time it gets to the Legislature–it certainly goes to print, you know, a short time before, but a lot of these more routine issues are dealt with, you know, early on. And, you know, in terms of the breakdown of the $28 million, it's perhaps a bit of assistance to that. That's assuming forest fires, $15 million; DFA, $8 million; and we have a further $5 million, you know, which is una llocated. Again, that's the overall experience. So, you know, forest fires are a fairly consistent element of it. Floods, you know, vary quite a bit. I want to say floods –DFA doesn't just cover floods.

It could be severe wind events, tornados–again, a lot of that's done through insurance. * (12:00)

1236 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 So that's the breakdown. It's mostly historic. We don't really have the ability, by the time the budget's prepared, to predict, and, quite frankly, even with a full forecast on the flood our experience is you don't really know on the actual impacts 'til it happens, even if you have some sense of the relative risk. Mr. Helwer: In terms of things like water bombers, occasionally they're lent out to other provinces or districts, and how does –how do we go about recapturing that?

Is it done through DFA or through other provinces or is that –I imagine it's not something that's simple. Mr. Ashton: I can say, as a former minister of Conservation, it's done through Conservation. We were responsible for the capital, major investment, which was very significant, and there's a cost recovery. It's a very good program, and we're looking at that, by the way, in terms of floods, flood equipment, getting an equivalent voice for a national meeting.

I know the federal government is very interested in this because we also hav e a lot of flood-fighting equipment and expertise that we think could be mobilized across the country. And I know in the case of major disasters we did offer that in terms of Alberta, and so we're looking at the same model on our side, but Conservation adm inisters the other side. Mr. Helwer: Grain transportation has been an issue, and, obviously, moving the product is a challenge both by rail and by truck, and there's been some discussion of weight restrictions and some flexibilities.

Can the minister give me an idea of how he plans to deal with that? Is it a one -time application or are we looking at delaying some of the restrictions coming on the highways as we move into spring in order to make sure we can get the grain off the farm to the transport points on rail? Mr. Ashton: Well, it's a very timely question. First of all, on the broader issue of grain, we met earlier this week with CP CEO Hunter Harrison and with OmniTRAX. We're meeting with Claude Mongeau, the CEO of CN, on Monday. We basically put forward a very clear vision for the province in terms of grain transportation.

It's a crisis level. One of the key focuses we've looked at, in addition to ways of enhancing capacity through the Port of Churchill is the fact that the majority of our grain actually traditionally goes through Thunder Bay. And we had a very good meeting with CP. The CEO for CP did indicate his awareness of the issue, and they are working on getting trains moving into Thunder Bay as we speak. We've had contacts at the staff lev el with CN and we're going to follow that up on Monday.

So we're anticipating a very significant movement of grain to Thunder Bay, and that is very timely because there may be a slightly later opening of the season. But Thunder Bay is open 200 days a year. It will be open probably April, May, you know, so there's some significant advantages there. I'm also advised too that the latest information is they're also looking to putting ice breakers in, which again is something that would expand the season.

Now, in terms of getting the grain onto rail, what we've done is we will –in fact, we'll be announcing this–is we are going to be treating it as an essential commodity and providing the ability for this circumstance only, I want to stress that, because, you know, we are –we also have to protect the infrastructure, the ability for the grain sector to – individual producers to go up to the 90 per cent load restriction for the essential purpose of transporting the grain. Basically, that would then give them the ability to move it 24 -7, basically, without a permit.

And I want to stress again, that's not for any other purpose, but it is for this purpose, and that's important because the real problem here is the longer it sits in the bins or in field, in some cases, the more it's a problem. I should also indicate that we have also been developing contingency plans for areas where there might be flooding. I mean, we – there's always some degree of flooding in the province. It –the movement to Thunder Bay is critical because we were at 112 per cent elevator capacity, which has been –you know, storage capacity, which has been a real challenge.

On a broader sense, by the way –and I won't get into, you know, too much detail unless the member wants to, but we have flagged a lot of this through the grain–or the freight services review that took place a number of years ago with the federal government. I'll be very up front; we have a pretty decent working relationship with Minister Ritz right now on this issue, but we wer e somewhat disappointed in the review.

One of the problems, by the way, is that shippers tend to have –I often call it a duopoly, I guess my – put my economist hat on, but, you know, a lot of people remind me, in many cases, it's really two monopolies, you know, in the sense, you know, outside of maybe 10 per cent of producers that have

March 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1237 a choice between CN and CP within a reasonable distance, most areas of the province it's one or the other. And there are a handful of short lines. What it means is, you know , with the current system, there's been a lot of concern about shippers' abilities to, first of all, get cars and also to get the kind of service allocation that they need. And, you know, I –to be fair to the railroads, I mean, it was a record crop year, bu t a lot of the issues on the other side have been ongoing for many years. And so we're looking at the broader element.

I'm not sure what the federal government's on in terms of their–at now in terms of their emergency legislation. I know they had talked about putting it in; we haven't heard yet in terms of that. Our focus, though, is short -term: get the grain aboard. And I want to note that our Cabinet committee I co -chair with the Minister of Agriculture–the minister responsible for local government and the Minister for Jobs and Economy are also part of it –I do think we've seen some significant progress just even in the time we've been working on it. And, again, I do want to thank the CEO of CP.

It was a good meeting, and I look forward to the meetin g on Monday with CN, but we're going to do our bit as well. We're not just talking rail; we're looking at our highway system and we're going to provide the emergency flexibility that producers need. Actually, what–one other thing I'm also advised, too, which is important, we basically have changed this–the way we deal with spring restrictions to the point that we can now do it on the basis of science, based on actual climate experience. We've changed the system so there's a quicker turnaround.

So, for example, we're probably not looking–and this is a comment on the weather here; this may be depressing in a lot of ways but not to producers trying to move grain. Normally we might be looking at restrictions March 11th, we're now basically looking more genera lly on March 28th, so a 17- day difference. And we'll review it again next week because if the weather continues to be as cold as it is, who knows? It might–we might be into April as well. So that's not necessarily seen as good news for most Manitobans, but for some people it is. Yes.

By the way, just in case people wonder if it's only this year, it was April 10th last year. So we've actually, notwithstanding this year – people remember this as the bad winter, the cold winter–I'll tell you, it's good for two things. One is delays in bringing the spring restrictions in, and the second is for the winter roads. And, actually, I'll be up front, we are having a very good winter road season.

It wasn't a great freeze-up, but many years in the province now we're havi ng really good success on this end of the season, and we've actually put some additional resources on the maintenance to keep that going. So there are some benefits to cold winters. I mentioned two of them. If the members opposite have any ideas about additional ones, please let me know, because, you know, I think we're all getting fatigued. Time to move on to spring, but it is good news to some of us. * (12:10) Mr. Helwer: Yes, winter's not quite ready to give up just yet.

And, as the minister did say, there are some good things in circumstances where we have some issues, obviously, winter roads and the grain as well. In terms of the emergency availability to move grain off the farm with 90 per cent restrictions, is there a window of when that would end, or it's just at the discretion of the government? Mr. Ashton: Yes, we're going to evaluate it, but it's– basically there's no set end date right now. Yes, and the issue here, of course, is the spring road restrictions. I'm reminded again, too, once the restrictions are up it's not an issue.

It really is that narrow window, and I'll be very up front of what our concern i s. We expressed this to the railroads. But we're making sure we do our bit. There's a real concern out there, and sort of, perhaps until some of the developments this week that you don't want grain in storage going into a new crop season. When I say new crop, you know, once you get the crop off you don't want to compound it, and our concern has always been basically to ensure that we can get as much movement as possible.

I also want to say that our Minister of Agriculture has had a good working relationship with other western provinces where we're in a similar situation. However, Manitoba's focus has been a bit different because our grain goes south and east. Some of it goes west. So we're –we–one of the issues we have raised to make sure that there's a reasonable allocation of car movements across the system, you know, certainly Alberta, Saskatchewan, we would hope they would receive, you know, fair consideration, but we've been very active.

1238 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 21, 2014 And by the way, just a reminder and remind us as well here, that the road restrictions in spring usually last about eight weeks or to May 31st. You know, it's the general season. So the key thing we're doing for the movement of grain is on an emergency basis here, recognizing an essential commodity and allowing moveme nt without a permit up to 90 per cent load restrictions during that period. Once the spring restrictions come off, it's not an issue. Mr.

Helwer: I think during his opening statement the minister had mentioned some weather statements and–sorry, weather st ations–that are being erected around the province. Is that –which area does that belong to in the department and who will have access to these stations? Are they publicly accessed? Is it something you can see on the WeatherBug or –and listed as a station for reporting or how will they be accessed? Mr. Ashton: Straightforward answer is all across the province. We're working with MAFRI on this.

This has advantages both for the ag side as well as the emergency response side, and of our experience with 2009, 2011 was a key part of that. But, more broadly, I think that's been a real area of interest for the ag community as well. This kind of information is extremely useful. And you know, if it's–anyone that's weather sensitive, it's this department and the ag sector. So yes, it's going to be throughout the province. And again, you need the model, you need the systems, you need the human side, as well, the people that can interpret the data.

But we will have both enhanced data and enhanced capacity to deal with that and we're also going to have an enhanced team. We've got 12 people in our flood forecasting team, so this –it's all part of our increased focus on the forecasting system. Mr. Helwer: So is that something that the public will access through your website, then, or through other public sites? How would we see some of the forecasting from these stations–or, not forecasting, I guess, but weather evaluations from what's happening there now. Mr.

Ashton: Actually, I can certainly indicate from our side , the information will go directly to our forecasting team. I can't talk for the ag side how that will be–that information will be used. But certainly it does open up some possibilities of enhanced public information in terms of that. So I'll perhaps take it under advisement, not being directly responsible for the ag side. But, you know, generally speaking, again, the more information that's available to our staff, the better.

And however it's transmitted on the ag side, it will make a difference there, as well , whether it's directly to the public or even through ag staff because, again, it –that kind of information is very important for many producers in terms of, you know, crop planning, you know, planning what kind of crops, you know, when to plant them, et ce tera.

And certainly I appreciate that perspective as we see on the EMO side, the damage side, you know, in many years there's a very big difference between, you know, what you can plant and having, you know – you're never going to get exact one hundred per cent weather information, obviously, in terms of the future but I think real -time data, it does make a real difference in terms of the immediate choices people make, so I'll undertake to pass that on to ag as well. Mr. Smook : I'd like to ask one more question in regards to the Gardenton Floodway.

Has the minister talked anything with the Minister of Conservation, as far as using that whole area as a water -retention area? We hear a lot about water retention these days. Have there been any discussions in one of the plans possibly to enlarge the area to use it for water retention, as well as just for flooding? Mr. Ashton : Yes, it's standard to look at that, and any projects. We do talk to Conservation, Water Stewardship, and indeed, we–one of the issues we do lack at–look at in terms of the technical report, not just the flood side, but potential for retention. Mr.

Helwer: Going back to–there's some discussion of Churchill, the Churchill line, obviously, is an interest for grain and other commodities. There –my understanding is there's a good portion of petroleum products that already travel up that line, diesel and aviation fuel and such and there have been some concerns about shipping oil through there. Can the minister expand on that a little bit and, if we already ship more volatile products, why would there be a concern for putting oil up that line? Mr.

Ashton : Well, first of all, there's limited shipment of any petrochemical goods; it's mostly just for supply purposes. Second of all, crude oil has very different elements to it. It is a hazardous substance. The federal government's recognized

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-3-33c
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 3rd hansardpdf 33c.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c635bec115038a3e470c03b2acd68f031997b1dc

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).